Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2007 2007 (7) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 441 to 460 of 678 Records

• 2007 (7) TMI 243
  

  Capital gains - Property mortgaged to bank – property sold to discharge the loan – tribunal allowed assessee’s appeal holding that bank had an overriding title over the property and the real value - Tribunal was not justified in holding that there was an overriding charge against the sale proceeds of property - hence assessee was liable for capital gains in respect of Rs 1,50,000 paid to bank in discharge of loan taken – tribunal order set aside – it is a case of application of income received

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 242
  

  Assessee constructed a house - additions made by AO on basis of difference between the cost of construction determined by the Valuation Officer & as declared by the appellant – assessee contending that if cost is assessed on basis of local PWD rates then there will be no difference – CIT accordingly granted 20% deduction from the total cost - What should be the value of the construction, is basically a question of fact – hence order of CIT & ITAT is correct and could not be interfered

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 241
  

  Bad debts - winding up petition was filed by the assessee because the amounts were not recoverable from the debtor - said company (debtor) had also been declared a sick company by BIFR – assessee could not recover its debts, hence amount was deductible as a bad debt – Secondly, when realization of even the principal amount was in jeopardy and, therefore, there could not be said to be any real accrual income by way of interest – addition on account of interest were rightly deleted

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 240
  

  Unexplained investment – construction of property - As regards the source, the assessee stated that amounts were taken from various individuals & entities including the HUF & the assessee himself - AO not accepted the above explanation and made additions – ITAT uphold the order of CIT that investment had been properly explained by the withdrawals shown by the assessee, which were also found at the time of the search – finding of tribunal is finding of fact so could not be interfered

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 239
  

  Reassessment - earlier assessment was made u/s 143(3) & there is nothing to show that the assessee had failed to fully & truly disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment - AO applied his mind to the entire facts of the case when the earlier assessment was done - nothing on record to suggest that there was no application of mind which would entitle the succeeding AO to issue a notice to the assessee to reopen the assessment – impugned notice even if issued after 4 years, is valid

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 238
  

  Disallowance of the provisions for bonus - scope of power of AO conferred u/s 143(1), to make prima facie adjustment while computing the taxable income - AO had rightly added back the bonus provision, as the assessee had not paid the amount within the due date for filing the returns and accordingly – tribunal is justified in confirming the order of CIT that section 43B override section 36(1) - prima facie adjustment made u/s 143(1)(a) in respect of the bonus provision are valid

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 237
  

  Assessee had repaid some of the share application money which it had received earlier in cash – assessee plea is that amount received is only for the purpose of allotment of shares and it is not a deposit or loan, is acceptable – no interest paid on advance - bona fide belief that the money received is only for the purpose of allotment of shares - Tribunal rightly held that cash payments pertains to refund of share application money and not repayment of deposit or loan –penalty not leviable

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 236
  

  Source of loans and advances not proved – AO treated these deposits as unexplained credits u/s 68 - Tribunal has accepted the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the amount deposited by various persons - source and the genuineness of the deposits has also accepted - finding of the Tribunal, in our opinion, are pure findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence and material on record and therefore assessee appeal is allowed

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 235
  

  How to compute special deduction u/s 80HHC is issue in controversy and is a debatable issue - A decision on a debatable point of law cannot be regarded as a mistake apparent on the face of the record – hence a debatable point cannot be a reason for rectification under Section 154 – hence rectification sought by revenue on ground that deduction under section 80HHC was deducted from 30% of the book profit, is not justified

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 234
  

  Rectification application of revenue dismissed by tribunal - Tribunal rejected the miscellaneous petition on the ground that, Revenue failed to produce any evidence that the notice for reassessment was issued within the period of one year- In the absence of such evidence it was held that the assessment framed was invalid in law - Tribunal concluded that there was no mistake apparent from the record to be rectified – order of tribunal was justified - no question of law arise for consideration

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 233
  

  Interest income was earned out of the export realisation and kept in Foreign Currency Deposit Account - it is clear that there is no direct nexus between the interest earned and the Industrial Undertaking - interest received by the assessee is of deposit made by it in the banks - Therefore the assessee is not entitled to relief under Section 10A – Tribunal rightly held that it was not export income and the interest was to be assessed under the head "income from other sources"

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 232
  

  Additions on account of unexplained investment - Assessing Officer as well as the CIT (A) have failed to appreciate the contention advanced by the assessee that the entries made in the diary were imaginary - Tribunal deleted the additions on ground that additions are based only on a diary and such entries are imaginary and not reliable – order of the Tribunal is based on pure findings of fact, so it cannot be interfered with

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 231
  

  No penalty proceedings initiated in preceding year on similar set of facts - complete facts were made available to the Assessing Officer along with the return as well as during the course of assessment proceedings and, therefore, it has been held that it is a case of difference of opinion and not concealment of income - once the department has accepted the order in the previous year then it has to act in the same fashion even for the subsequent years – penalty not imposable

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 230
  

  Whether the capital loss can be claimed in respect of transfer of rights issue in a case where the assessee sold its right to subscribe to partially convertible debentures – held that market value of the rights issue had to be reckoned regardless of whether the sale contribution of the rights was less than the notional loss or not - assessee is entitled to claim the capital loss that had arisen due to transfer of rights issue to partially convertible debentures – revenue’s appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 229
  

  Reassessment notice u/s 148 issued even when valid return was filed and assessments have not been completed under Section 143 – held that no action could be initiated under Section 147 of the Act, when there is a pendency of the Return before the Assessing Officer - reasons given by the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence and we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference – revenue’s appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 228
  

  Gutka case – concealment of filing of appeal with tribunal - maintainability of this writ petition – petitioner not informed the HC that he has already availed statutory alternative remedy by filing the appeal to tribunal – hence challenge to decision of commissioner of imposing duty and penalty of 320 crore in this petition is not permissible – plea of petitioner that he filed petition for speedy disposal, is not acceptable – petition not entertainable mere because of heavy duty involved

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 227
  

  Cash credits - undisclosed income - Stock not tallying with stock calculated according to books of account – identity of creditors, nature & source of credit stood explained - Tribunal is justified in holding that amount of Rs. 13,56,000 has been deposited by the sons of assessee, which was realized after selling the pilferage stocks outside the books of account – entire case of AO is based on doubts without any evidence - no merit in the revenue’s appeal - no substantial question of law arise

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 226
  

  Export - Tribunal hold that deduction u/s 80HHC shall be granted before set off of the unabsorbed depreciation, unabsorbed business loss and unabsorbed investment allowance of the earlier years before grant of depreciation – in view of apex Court decision in various cases held that in determining business profits for the deduction under section 80 HHC, the unabsorbed business losses of earlier years u/s 72 should be set off – tribunal order set aside

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 225
  

  Tribunal hold that for computation of profit u/s 80 HHC, business profit should be adopted without considering unabsorbed depreciation carried forward – SC has held that Sec. 80AB specify that profits as determined for purpose of the Act, will apply for determining profits from export business for purposes of deduction u/s 80 HHC – hence in determining business profits for deduction u/s 80 HHC, unabsorbed business losses of earlier years u/s 72 should be set off – tribunal order set aside

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 224
  

  Assessee is a Co-operative Bank engaged in the business of banking – deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) in respect of income earned from utilization of its voluntary reserves other than the statutory reserves, in HDFC bonds – AO disallowed deduction on ground that HDFC is not an approved securities as RBI or NABARD – since it is not mandatory to invest funds only in approved securities like RBI, income from HDFC bonds is allowable for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i)

  ---

1 ....192021222324252627........ 34